In the United States
The U.S. Triple P System Population Trial found that making Triple P available to all parents in a county (not just those parents at risk) led to:
Fewer hospitalizations from child abuse injuries (13% lower)
Fewer out-of-home placements (21% lower)
Slowed growth of confirmed child abuse cases (31% lower)
This was when compared to counties without access to Triple P. (1)
In a further analysis of this trial, E. Michael Foster reported that the cost of delivering Triple P universally would be recovered in a single year by reducing by just 10 percent the number of families in which abuse and neglect occurred. (2)
In 2011, the Public Health Agency of Canada partnered with the Institute of Health Economics to study the cost effectiveness of early childhood interventions in mental health, and the implications for Canadian health policy. The Alberta-based study (3) used a birth cohort of 52,000 and found:
Triple P would pay for itself if conduct disorder was reduced between 5% and 6%.
If a 25% reduction was achieved, Triple P would save up to CA$10.2million in justice,
mental health, education and social services costs for those children.
(1)Prinz, R.J., Sanders, M.R., Shapiro, C.J., Whitaker, D.J., & Lutzker, J.R. (2009) Addendum to “Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: The U.S. Triple P System Population Trial”. Prevention Science, 17, 1-7.
(2) Foster, E.M., Prinz, R.J., Sanders, M.R., & Shapiro, C. (2008). The costs of a public health infrastructure for delivering parenting and family support. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 493-501.
(3) Escobar Doran C., Jacobs P., Dewa, C.S. (2011). Return on investment for mental health promotion: parenting programs and early childhood development. Edmonton: Institute of Health Economics. www.ihe.ca/publications/library/2011/